Agenda 8-a - Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 27 • What to do when privacy issues are encountered. The policy envisions a balancing test that will be employed to weigh the privacy interests of an individual against the legitimate law enforcement interests. If the privacy interests outweigh the law enforcement ones, the decision would weigh in favor of turning off the recording device. • The policy indicates that officers will never be asked to jeopardize their safety by turning on the camera, and will be guided by a standard of reasonableness. • The policy addresses when turning off the device is appropriate, which is usually when the officer's direct participation in an incident is completed, if the set out criteria no longer fits, significant periods of inactivity, etc. • The State's retention schedule for Sheriff's offices, which Orange County has adopted, sets the floor for the different timelines for how long things should be retained. The State sets it at 30 days, and Orange County's policy requires 180 days, at the minimum. Any misdemeanor would require a 3 -year retention period, and any felony would require a 20 -year retention period. Commissioner Price said in the purpose and scope section, it refers to "portable and mobile," and asked if Jennifer Galassi could differentiate between the two. Jennifer Galassi said an officer using a personal device is still subject to this policy. Commissioner Price referred to the second paragraph, and said it does not apply to mobile audio -video recordings. Jennifer Galassi said it reads "mobile, audio, or video recordings, interviews or interrogations..." and this is modifying what comes after it. She said it is taking out of this policy interviews, interrogations, recordings that are made within the Sheriff's office, or taken from an undercover officer, wire taps, or eavesdropping. Commissioner Price said some of the language reads, "should" instead of "shall," and asked if there is specific reasoning behind this. She read the following as an example: "when using a portable recorder, the assigned member should record his /her name." She asked if there is a reason the officer is not required to record his /her name. Jennifer Galassi said that is envisioning what it then goes on to discuss. She said she does not know how their particular system will work, and it is envisioned that each unit is going to be assigned to one particular officer, and so the system will be set to an individual, and thus recording a name will be unnecessary. Sheriff Blackwood said the devices will be issued, and the computer index will have the officer's name on it, and it will be theirs to keep with them all the time. Jennifer Galassi said they have envisioned having additional devices in the event there is a malfunction with one. She said in this scenario, the officer will have to manually assign themselves to the device. Commissioner Marcoplos said it sounds like a lot will be learned with experience, and asked if there are any process or evaluation techniques in mind. Jennifer Galassi said it will be a learning curve as things occur. She said issues can be anticipated, but as soon as the officers have the devices, further input and feedback will be gathered. Chair Dorosin said last time this topic was discussed, Sheriff Blackwood said the policy would say that if someone wanted to see a video, they would be permitted to do so; but he said he does not see that allowance in policy 803. Sheriff Blackwood said it is in the general statute, and if it is not in the policy, it will be added. Chair Dorosin said the General State Statute says a video "may" be disclosed, and he understood that Orange County will make the wording that a video "will" be disclosed to a